VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - AIDS activists, health officials and even some quarters of the Catholic Church criticized the Vatican on Tuesday for defending its opposition to condoms.

Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan said in a message to mark World Aids Day on Monday that fidelity, chastity and abstinence were the best ways to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

"It's very disappointing because the Catholic Church's irrational stance on condoms undermines the very good work that the Catholic Church does with regards to caring for people with HIV...," said Nathan Geffen in South Africa.

Geffen, national manager of Treatment Action Campaign, South Africa's foremost group of AIDS activists, echoed comments by others who work with HIV/AIDS sufferers in Africa.

The Church opposes contraception, including condoms, which it says promote promiscuity. Criticism has increased as the number of AIDS victims soars.

"By not supporting the use of condoms and not advocating the use of condoms as one of the preventative measures I would say that the Catholic Church is helping the spread of a deadly disease," Morten Rostrup, president of the international council of Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), said in Nairobi.

"We know condoms are one of the best ways of preventing the disease. We are surely not opposed to behavioral changes. But to advocate against the use of condoms as a preventative measure ... is totally unacceptable from a moral, ethical and medical perspective," he said.

"HEDONISTIC LIFESTYLES"

In his message for World AIDS Day, Cardinal Barragan made a clear reference to condoms, saying information campaigns should not be "based on policies that foster immoral and hedonistic lifestyles and behavior, favoring the spread of the evil."

AIDS activists rejected this.

"They should reconsider their position for the sake of us Africans and everyone else who has the disease," said Gitura Mwaura, chairman of Kenya Coalition for Access to Essential Medicines.

"It's time they pulled their heads out of the sand because this is a serious situation. Promoting abstinence has to date not worked but condoms have provided some protection," he said.

While the Vatican was urging Catholics to shun condoms, a U.S. Catholic group was rebelling against the Vatican message.

Catholics for a Free Choice, an independent organization, launched a global campaign called "Good Catholics Use Condoms."

The campaign, launched on Monday in the Washington D.C. metro, includes posters that will not please the Vatican.

Two show smiling young heterosexual couples above a message reading: "We believe in God. We believe that sex is sacred. We believe in caring for each other. We believe in using condoms."

The group, which the Vatican says is not an official representation of Catholicism, also produced a booklet called: "Sex in the HIV/AIDS Era -- A Guide for Catholics."

"We cannot stand by and let the Vatican go unchallenged with its irresponsible attitude toward condoms and Catholics," said Frances Kisslings, the group's president.

"Cardinals and bishops must promote a culture of life in which responsible sexuality and AIDS prevention are linked, not a culture of death which will result in more AIDS ravaged communities, especially in the developing world," she said. (Additional reporting by William Maclean in Nairobi and Ed Stoddard in Johannesburg)

Catholics for a Free Choice, an independent organization, launched a global campaign called "Good Catholics Use Condoms."

Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC)Promotes artificial contraceptive "rights," including abortion. Their focus is the "intersection of Catholic teaching and public policy." Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated those that belong to this group in his Diocese. Member of Catholic Organizations for Renewal*. They have been condemned by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB).

* Catholic Organizations for Renewal (COR)

Not an organization per se, but a forum where many dissenting organizations plot their attack on the teachings of Jesus' Church. Their proclaimed mission is:

a coalition of Catholic groups, inspired by Vatican II, [an indicator of the modernist "spirit of Vatican II" - see one member below with that name]

to further the reform and renewal of the Catholic Church, and [Martin Luther also "reformed" the church and established a church of man based on his personal beliefs - all heretics have done so in the past. Why is COR any different?]

to bring about a world of justice and peace, reflecting the sacredness of all creation." [sacred creation is a pagan belief; true peace and justice result from following God's teachings, not opposing them]

In his message for World AIDS Day, Cardinal Barragan made a clear reference to condoms, saying information campaigns should not be "based on policies that foster immoral and hedonistic lifestyles and behavior, favoring the spread of the evil."

By not supporting the use of condoms and not advocating the use of condoms as one of the preventative measures I would say that the Catholic Church is helping the spread of a deadly disease," Morten Rostrup, president of the international council of Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders), said in Nairobi.

I don't think so.

Criticizing the Catholic Church in this regard is sort of like criticizing General Motors for failing to build a car that can be driven safely by a motorist with a blood-alcohol level of .20%.

A previous article posted here detailed discussions within the church, where church officials were telling MARRIED women, who had HIV+ husbands, NOT to use condoms. The statements were that (paraphrasing) 'latex condoms have pores 10,000 times the size of the AIDS virus, thus condoms offer no protection from AIDS'. This statement is absurdly false, and the church's false information 'will' (as in definitely) cause the needless deaths of thousands.

Condom use is not reserved only to the single people, and now condom use is no longer reserved for the purpose of birth control. Condoms are a form of protection (or saving your life) while partaking in sexual relations within a marriage.

"It's very disappointing because the Catholic Church's irrational stance on condoms undermines the very good work that the Catholic Church does with regards to caring for people with HIV...," said Nathan Geffen in South Africa.

True compassion for those with HIV never entails caring for their physical needs at the expense of their spiritual needs.

What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self? (Lk 9:25)

It seems to me that a married woman with a husband who is HIV+ has bigger problems than the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church is simply making a very direct, relevant point -- in a scenario like the one you mentioned, abstinence is the only way to prevent transmission of the disease. Condoms may reduce the odds of transmission, but they don't prevent it.

While I do not contest the fact that condoms both reduce the chance of HIV transmission and act as a form of birth control; I do take issue with deliberate lies passed off as fact. Telling a congregation in a country ravaged by poverty, and afflicted with AIDS that condoms have NO effect on transmission is irresponsible.

It would appear that the chruch would be content to have AIDS spread through families, and HIV+ babies born; as that will be the garanteed result, should the congregation follow the instructions from the clergy.

Telling a congregation in a country ravaged by poverty, and afflicted with AIDS that condoms have NO effect on transmission is irresponsible.

I agree. What should have been said is that the personal behavior that leads to the spread of AIDS in that country is one of the primary reasons why there is also widespread poverty in that country. Poverty isn't just an accident of circumstances -- it is usually a symptom of an underlying problem with personal behavior or inferior culture.

You might want to find that other article and post the link here, since we are discussing a comment that was not made in the article at the top of this thread and therefore cannot be substantiated here.

A previous article posted here detailed discussions within the church, where church officials were telling MARRIED women, who had HIV+ husbands, NOT to use condoms. The statements were that (paraphrasing) 'latex condoms have pores 10,000 times the size of the AIDS virus, thus condoms offer no protection from AIDS'. This statement is absurdly false, and the church's false information 'will' (as in definitely) cause the needless deaths of thousands.

Could you link the article or thread?

I would like to see it because I don't think the church has made such a statement.

Additionally, condoms may reduce the risk of AIDS transmission, however, this is meaningless. If they reduce the risk ro just 2% of unprotected sex, continous sex, with a condom, only delays the date of transmission it does not prevent it. In other words, if you keep indulging in behavior with a 2% risk factor each time you indulge, it is very likely your number will come up sooner or later.

While I respect the church for recommending abstaining, to say that latex condoms are ineffectual against spreading AIDS is a bold faced lie. Condoms may be only ~2% effective; but seatbelts are far less effective in saving lives; yet only a fool would recommend never using one.

According to BBC report, "cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns in four continents of the church have been quoted as saying HIV can pass through tiny holes in condoms but latest warnings were made in a Panorama programme called 'Sex and the Holy City' by one of the Vatican's most senior cardinals Alfonso Lopez Trujillo who allegedly suggests that the AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon and could pass through net formed by the condom.

Trujillo, President of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, called on governments to urge people not to use condoms.

His words "These margins of uncertainty, should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do, with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."

In swift reaction to this claim, the World Health Organization (WHO) has condemned the comments and warned the Vatican to desist from putting lives at risk with such utterances.

A spokeswoman to WHO was quoted as saying that" Statements like this are quite dangerous"We are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people and currently affects around 42 million. "There is so much evidence to show that condoms don't let sexually transmitted infections like HIV through. "Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong."

I went through the first two links and got a pretty clear picture of what theyr'e about. The first is a left wing hit peice opinion column published in the S.F. Chronicle. The author - a left wing idiot - makes one accusation after another without substantiating even one of them.

The itacized text is from the second article. Please notice the words "allegedly suggested." That is hardly a pronouncement of Catholic doctrine. What the good Cardinal actually said is in quotes in the article. His words "These margins of uncertainty, should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do, with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger" may be cause for controversy, but it is bad public policy to permit people to believe that use of a condom insures protection from contracting diseases.

As for your analogy to seatbelts it is based on a false premise. Use of seat belts is only a redundancy to driving a car. So, a small percentage of road trips result in an accident. An even smaller percentage result in a life threatening accident and finally, seat belts reduce the risk of deat even further. If your chance of any given road trip resulting in a life threatening accident is much less that 2% and sealt belts only reduce this further.

If you had a 2% chance of dying, each time you got in an automobile - I can assure you driving would be prohibited. It would also be a pretty unpopular activity.

A better analogy would be the flying of bomber missions to Germany in WWII. On each mission there was a 3% (I beleive) mortality rate. After only 20 missions 60% of the original 60% of the original group was dead. For this reason, crews were limited to 25 missions. This gave them at least some chance of survival.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.